1

Balthasar Hubmaier: Doctor of Anabaptism Darren T. Williamson

Balthasar Hubmaier was born in the early to mid-1480s in the small town of Friedburg, outside

Augsburg.i Details of Hubmaier’s early life are scarce. Evidently his parents were not poor, since they

secured for him a place at the Cathedral school of Augsburg where he began his early education. He

entered the University of Freiburg in 1503 as a clerical student from Augsburg and after completing the basic

course of study, he enrolled in theology under Eck, who played a major role both in Hubmaier’s

intellectual development and in the ensuing polemics of the Reformation. Owing to financial difficulties in 1507 Hubmaier briefly interrupted his studies with a

one-year stint as the schoolteacher for the city of Schaffhausen, a city approximately 100 kilometers

southeast of Freiburg on the Rhine, but then returned to his studies at Freiburg. In 1512, Hubmaier followed Eck to the University of

Ingolstadt, where he received his doctorate in theology and accepted an appointment as professor of theology at the university. In addition to teaching while in Ingolstadt,

Hubmaier preached at the Church of St. Mary and served as prorector for the university. However, he left Ingolstadt in January 1516 for Regensburg to assume the influential

position of cathedral preacher. At Regensburg, Hubmaier soon became the popular leader of the longstanding

anti-Jewish movement in the city. His campaign against the imperially protected Jews of Regensburg was so vitriolic that he was forced to defend himself against charges of sedition before an Imperial diet in the city in the summer of 1518. By early 1519, however, largely due to Hubmaier’s preaching, the Jewish community was driven out of Regensburg and its synagogue destroyed. In its place the city built the new chapel of the Beautiful Mary, whose widely publicized miracles soon attracted pilgrims from all over Germany, encouraged by Hubmaier’s passionate sermons extolling the shrine’s spiritual benefits. When the pilgrimages peaked in 1520, Hubmaier’s fame had reached its zenith and he was a well-known figure throughout the southern regions of the Holy Roman Empire.

Despite his popular and profitable position at the chapel of the Beautiful Mary, Hubmaier abruptly left Regensburg in early 1521 and began preaching at the Church of St. Mary in the tiny provincial town of Waldshut on the frontier lands of Habsburg Austria. His motives for leaving the prestigious post at Regensburg for the backwater of Waldshut are unclear, but the increasing excesses of the pilgrims, a fear of the approaching plague, and conflict with city officials over his compensation were possible contributing factors. In the little town of Waldshut, between 1521 and 1523, Hubmaier changed from a popular parish preacher into a respected evangelical Reformer with close ties to Zwingli and Oecolampadius. He briefly resumed his former position in

2

Regensburg in the late fall of 1522, but he abruptly broke his contract there and returned to Waldshut a few months later; his religious transformation evidently had rendered his participation in the pilgrimage trade impossible.

The content of his Waldshut sermons and association with Swiss Reformers in the spring of 1523 implied his conversion, but Hubmaier’s participation in the October 1523 disputation at Zurich was an explicit declaration for the Reformation. There he denied the doctrine of transubstantiation and the sacrificial interpretation of the Mass, condemned the production and use of religious images, and sided with Zwingli’s reform movement. Upon returning to Waldshut he began openly to preach a message of reform and quickly converted the town council, which tenaciously defended him despite demands for his arrest by Austrian authorities. Until the fall of 1524, Hubmaier’s reformation had proceeded along the same lines as Zurich, but his alignment with the Grebel circle indicated that his inclinations were more extreme than Zwingli. By early 1525 Hubmaier had stopped baptizing infants and was gradually moving toward Anabaptism. Eventually, after months of deliberation, he was re-baptized on April 15, 1525 by exiled Swiss Anabaptists. Subsequently more than 300 of Hubmaier’s parishioners in Waldshut followed his example, and his theological training and literary eloquence quickly propelled him into a prominent position in the burgeoning Anabaptist movement.

Anabaptist reform in Waldshut coincided with the German Peasants’ War, and Hubmaier and the town council supported and aided the peasant cause. During 1525, with the endorsement of the Waldshut town council, Hubmaier continued reforming measures in the town and organized and fortified it for the inevitable Habsburg siege. During the first stages of the hostilities, due to the apparent alliance with Zurich and Austrian preoccupation with peasant forces in the countryside, no military campaign was directed against Waldshut; yet, by the fall of 1525, with the defeat of the regional peasant forces and Hubmaier’s alienation from one-time sympathizers (Oecolampadius and Zwingli), he was ill and unable to delay the certain defeat of the town. Eventually, Hubmaier and his wife, whom he had married the previous January, fled Waldshut in December 1525, and Habsburg troops soon occupied the town. Hubmaier originally intended to go to Basel, but the route was blocked by Austrian troops forcing him to enter Zurich, where he spent four traumatic months. After initially finding refuge with friends, he was arrested by city officials. Although at first, after pressure by Zwingli and others, he agreed to publicly renounce his Anabaptist beliefs, Hubmaier reaffirmed his view of baptism in an outburst that so enraged Zwingli that he consented to his torture. In April 1526 after making good on his promise to disavow Anabaptism, Hubmaier and his wife departed Zurich. Within a short time he had renounced his recantation and again promoted Anabaptist doctrines.

Zurich Disputation (1523)

3

In July 1526, Hubmaier arrived in the Moravian town of Nicolsburg, a region that had already embraced Zwinglian-style reforms but proved more tolerant of religious dissent than other regions of the Empire. Within months, Hubmaier’s skill as a charismatic leader and reformer helped create in the city a thriving Anabaptist movement of more than 2,000. As news of this phenomenon spread, Anabaptist refugees from other regions flocked to the relative safety of Nicolsburg, largely under the protection of Prince Leonhard von Liechtenstein, himself an Anabaptist convert. Due to the rapid growth of the Anabaptist congregation, Hubmaier turned his attention to theological and pastoral issues, resulting in seminal treatises on ecclesiology, anthropology, and sacramental theology. Toward the end of Hubmaier’s year-long stay in Nicolsburg, a major dispute arose involving Hans Hut, a successful Anabaptist missionary who advocated absolute pacifism framed within an apocalyptic worldview. Hubmaier responded to Hut in a series of tracts that maintained a positive role for the state in the reform of the Church and allowed for Christian involvement in just warfare. Hut converted many to his position and the dispute threatened to destroy Hubmaier’s magisterial Anabaptist reform in Nicolsburg.

Hubmaier’s politico-theological works eschewed rebellion, but King Ferdinand of Austria initiated an investigation into his alleged seditious activity dating to the Peasants’ War. On Ferdinand’s order, Hubmaier and his wife were arrested in the summer of 1527 and taken to Kreuzenstein castle near Vienna for interrogation and eventual punishment. Despite a spirited defense that emphasized the orthodox elements of his theology (belief in free will, Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc.), Hubmaier’s adherence to essential Anabaptist beliefs sealed his fate, and he was judged a rebellious heretic and burned at the stake on 10 March 1528. His wife was condemned and drowned three days later. Hubmaier’s Formal Education

Academic credentials distinguished Hubmaier from other early Anabaptists, but the sources reveal little specific information about his formal education. Besides the University of Freiburg matriculation record of 1 May 1503, the only explicit information about Hubmaier’s education is from a speech by Eck made at his nomination for the doctorate in 1512. In it Eck provides a glimpse at his early promise as a scholar and accomplishments as a preacher:

Our licentiate here has applied himself wholeheartedly to his task. Having been well grounded in the fundamentals of grammar and elementary studies during his youth, he entered the University of Freiburg. There, under my direction, he drank of the wellsprings of philosophy, not only deeply but judiciously. He always followed the lectures and took careful notes of everything – a diligent reader, a frequent auditor, and a sedulous retainer of whatever he heard. And so he won the Master’s cap summa cum laude. Though many wanted to persuade him to

Nicolsburg, Moravia

4

pursue medicine, he preferred to accompany and embrace that holiest of mistresses, theology, saying to himself: “I have chosen her and picked her out, and I shall make her dwell in the tabernacle of my mind.” Even though straightened circumstances at home hindered him to such an extent that he had to leave the temple of learning and teach school at Schaffhausen, still, when opportunity presented itself, he returned to his accustomed studies and once more began to struggle in our company. How much he has achieved his learned lectures bear witness, as do his sermons of great benefit to the people, and the other scholastic exercises more than amply demonstrate.ii

Although this kind of commendation was customary and probably includes stock phrases, it helps illuminate the otherwise murky picture of Hubmaier’s university education. Eck depicts Hubmaier as a diligent pupil, who zealously pursued his

education and energetically engaged in activities typical for advanced students such as repeating lectures. This may have been an expected role for Hubmaier, who began his studies late and who naturally had the respect of younger students. After returning from his teaching post in Schaffhausen, Hubmaier evidently involved himself in “scholastic exercises.” Eck’s reference may refer to a 1508 disputation in Freiburg over the issue of the proper number of feast days in the Christian calendar. This event is the sole event from Hubmaier’s early education that he later mentioned.iii

While at Freiburg and Ingolstadt, Hubmaier fostered relationships with individuals who later played important roles in the debate over the Reformation. In Freiburg, he befriended Johannes Fabri, the canon lawyer who studied briefly under Zasius. Fabri considered himself a humanist and initially expressed strong sympathies for the Reformation while serving as the Vicar-General and later Suffragan Bishop of Constance. Those sympathies,

however, evaporated in 1521 after Luther’s condemnation, and Fabri began writing against the reformers. Later, as advisor to Ferdinand of Austria he played a critical role in Hubmaier’s demise. Fabri interrogated Hubmaier and wrote the official account of his lapse into heresy and revolutionary activity. iv The most important relationship Hubmaier cultivated during his academic training was with his mentor, John Eck. Walter Moore, Jr has emphasized the closeness between Hubmaier and John Eck, suggesting that even after their falling out over the Reformation in 1524, Hubmaier’s theology continued to be shaped by the nominalism he learned from his Eck. In 1516 Hubmaier displayed his devotion to him in verse, praising his erudition and value to the German nation and that same year, Eck stayed with Hubmaier briefly in Regensburg on his way to Vienna and received from Hubmaier a copy Platina’s History of the Popes (Paris, 1505) as a token of appreciation.v

5

Hubmaier’s education consisted of the standard curriculum of the late medieval German university,vi a bachelor degree focusing almost exclusively on the trivium and the Master of Arts degree centering on natural philosophy and the quadrivium. Although humanists succeeded in substantially altering the liberal arts curriculum, especially regarding dialectic, the traditional programme continued to dominate well into the sixteenth century.vii Evidently Hubmaier studied both Hebrew and Greek, but it is difficult to determine the extent of his language training because he did not display it often in his publications. He deliberately promoted and utilized an egalitarian hermeneutic that drew attention to the “clear and plain sense of Scripture” and eschewed linguistic argumentation.viii

Hubmaier’s theological training was thoroughly scholastic and, according to his own admission, devoid of serious study of the Bible. Later, as an Anabaptist leader, he confessed: “God knows I am not lying, that I became a doctor in the Holy Scriptures (as this sophistry was called), and still did not understand the Christian articles contained here in this booklet [A Christian Catechism]. Yes, and at that time I had never read a Gospel, or an epistle by Paul from beginning to end.” Instead, he taught “Thomas, Scotus, Gabriel, Occam, decree, decretals, legends of the saints and other scholastics. These were previously our hellish scriptures.”ix His comments are not simply the hyperbole of a disillusioned theologian, for the humanist critique of scholasticism rested on similar assumptions about the neglect of a literary, contextual, and pastoral reading of Scripture in the schools. Erasmus himself complained that theology students obtained a bachelor’s degree without ever having read the gospel or Pauline epistles.x

Hubmaier’s account likely constitutes a fair description of the standard scholastic approach to theology at the universities in the early sixteenth century and his “hellish scriptures” were the mainstays of late medieval scholastic theology. In particular, as Eck’s student, Hubmaier was acquainted with the two dominant philosophical schools of the via antiqua and the via moderna, since both were represented adequately in the faculty of the University of Freiburg in the early 1500s. Although he incorporated elements from various intellectual traditions, Eck was firmly entrenched in the latter, a theological standpoint absorbed by Hubmaier. Steinmetz and Moore have both argued that Nominalism continued to affect the way Hubmaier framed his theology well after he broke ranks with his mentor on the fundamental question of the Reformation, particularly regarding free will. xi Hubmaier’s Connection with Humanism

Prior to his move to Waldshut in January 1521 there is little evidence of with humanism and his initial response to it is unclear. Given his admiration for Eck, Hubmaier’s attitude toward humanism would have likely mirrored that of his teacher as long as he was under his tutelage, but that is a matter of debate. Terrence Heath argued that Eck’s interest in humanism was largely pragmatic and that he primarily appreciated it for the linguistic and pedagogical advances it offered the Arts curriculum.xii Iserloh, however, pointed out that the humanist reforms made under his leadership in the university curriculum and the fact that many humanists initially counted him as one of their own suggest Eck was more of a humanist than some scholars have thought.xiii The extent of Eck’s humanism may be unclear, but his well-known criticism of Erasmus’ Annotations to the New Testament (1516) indicates his attitude toward its

6

application to theology. Eck argued that several of Erasmus’ annotations undermined confidence in the trustworthiness of the evangelists and their facility in Greek and that Erasmus’ preference for Jerome over Augustine was unwarranted.xiv Eck’s visit to Hubmaier in Regensburg in July 1516 occurred only a few months after the publication of Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum and it is possible that this landmark work of humanist biblical scholarship would have been one of the topics of discussion between the two friends.xv It is reasonable to conclude that initially Hubmaier probably would have been skeptical about humanist principles applied to theology.

The next stage of Hubmaier’s career, however, offers clear evidence of his shifting intellectual penchant in the direction of humanism. At the end of his first tenure at the chapel of Beautiful Mary in Regensburg in late 1520, Hubmaier grew disillusioned with his role as pilgrim preacher. Something had altered his thinking and Bergsten suggests this was his early encounter with humanism and Luther’s thought: “While Hubmaier was not outwardly concerned with the Reformation, one cannot exclude the possibility that he was already beginning to interest himself in Luther’s teachings, even in Regensburg.” After examining evidence from the Waldshut period, Bergsten states: “It is now clear from the sources that Hubmaier began to concern himself in Regensburg with the evangelical theology awakened by Erasmus, and that Luther played a decisive role in his conversion to the evangelical faith.”xvi

The sources for Bergsten’s conclusions are three extant letters dating from the first stage of Hubmaier’s pastorate at Waldshut (early 1521- fall 1522). Hubmaier worked in Waldshut as a committed priest, faithful to the sacramental system of the medieval Church, and these letters reveal that internally a conversion toward the Reformation was taking place, aided greatly by an exposure to humanist circles and writings. Hubmaier made important contacts with south German humanists while still en route to Waldshut as he stopped over in Ulm and befriended Wolfgang Rychard, a physician and humanist Reformer in the city. The correspondence from the Waldshut period in part signaled Hubmaier’s attempts to maintain and cultivate humanist contacts established at Ulm. xvii It consists of (1) a short note in early 1521 to Beatus Rhenanus (1485-1547), the Basel humanist and textual critic; (2) an introductory letter of October 26, 1521 to Johannes Sapidus (1490-1561), rector of the Latin school of Schlettstadt and prominent Alsatian humanist; and (3) a letter of June 23, 1522 addressed to the Schaffhausen physician and humanist Johannes Adelphi (1485-1523). Since these letters constitute the primary evidence of Hubmaier’s contact with humanism and Erasmus during this period, they warrant close scrutiny.

Hubmaier forged ties with humanists in Ulm and acquired books there that supported the cause of Luther. In early 1521, he sent one of these acquisitions, a first edition of Oecolampadius’ Iudicium de doctore Martino Luthero (1520), to Beatus

7

Rhenanus as a gift. Eventually Rhenanus became a great classical scholar and historian in his own right, but his early renown was due to a close relationship with Erasmus who befriended him upon his arrival in Basel in 1514. Rhenanus was a great

admirer of Erasmus and edited almost everything he published at the Froben press. Erasmus praised and commended Rhenanus to bishops and princes; Rhenanus memorialized Erasmus in a stained glass window in the parish church of Schlettstadt and composed the first vita after his death. At the time of Hubmaier’s gift and note to him in 1521, Rhenanus was preparing the first edition of Tertullian’s works, a project that coincided with his repudiation of scholasticism and support for Luther’s reforms.xviii

Hubmaier’s short inscription on the inside cover of the book reads:

Balthasar Pacimontanus to his friend Beatus Rhenanus. He

sends this golden nugget quite late, who was unable to send it more quickly. Most learned Rhenanus, I am sending the opinion of the highly learned Oecolampadius now because I could not send it any sooner. For it has not been in the hands of the lord Vicar of Constance. But I brought it back with me from those days in Ulm. Farewell. Yours most faithfully, Balthasar.xix

The short inscription provides only a few clues as to Hubmaier’s state of mind. First, the tone suggests he already knew Rhenanus. He probably made his acquaintance in Ulm through Wolfgang Rychard, who was publicly siding with Luther. A subsequent letter between Hubmaier and Rychard includes references to several other humanists in the city, revealing that his stopover there was very productive in establishing humanist networks. Rhenanus was likely one of the contacts made at Ulm.xx The note confirms that Hubmaier was moving in the direction of the Reformation, since Oecolampadius’ tract, which he labels a “golden nugget,” refers to Luther’s theology as the “true gospel.”xxi The significance of the inscription and the gift is twofold: Hubmaier was both maintaining a relationship with an individual who was “the most faithful of Erasmus’ associates,”xxii and he had already (by early 1521) formed a favourable assessment of Luther’s ideas and sought to spread them to like-minded friends. The letter to Johannes Sapidusxxiii plainly demonstrates Hubmaier’s embrace of humanism. His acquaintance with Rhenanus may have sparked Hubmaier’s correspondence with Sapidus, rector of the grammar school of Schlettstadt, Rhenanus’ alma mater. Due to Sapidus’ leadership, it had recently undergone a major humanist curricular transformation and was flourishing with around 900 students. The school was also the city’s most famous organization and served as a model of pre-university humanist education.xxiv By writing to the Schlettstadt humanist, Hubmaier increased his familiarity with Erasmus’ circle of friends, for Sapidus had escorted Erasmus from Schlettstadt to Basel in 1514 and maintained a friendship with him for many years. Eventually Sapidus left Schlettstadt for Strasbourg due to his support for the

8

Reformation, but at the time of Hubmaier’s letter he was at the height of his career and close to Erasmus.xxv Hubmaier’s missive to Sapidus had at least two distinct purposes, the first of which was to enroll his nephew as a student at Sapidus’ Latin school. He offered to pay for any required books, but recommended modest poverty for his nephew, “lest he arrange a nest among the stars” and become spoiled. Hubmaier insists that the young man specifically read several of Erasmus’ works: “Therefore, make sure most learned man, that he in no way neglects the Paraphrases of Erasmus, his compendium, and the reading of Terence, by which you will be doing me a great favor.”xxvi The isolation of

Waldshut limited Hubmaier’s personal contact with humanists, but evidently he acquired a taste for Erasmus. By the time Hubmaier wrote to Sapidus in the fall of 1521, Erasmus had published Paraphrases on all the epistles of the New Testament which were meant to accompany the reading of the Greek New Testament. The Paraphrases on the Gospels appeared in print between 1522 and 1524.xxvii Erasmus first published the Ratio seu compendium verae theologiae (Method of a True Theology) in 1518 as an independent treatise, but in 1519 he reprinted it as a preface to the revised edition of the

Novum Testamentum. In the Ratio, Erasmus summarizes the humanist theological method, stressing the need for learned and pious theologians, trilingual education, and exegetical precision. The Ratio challenges scholasticism’s exclusive claim on theology, contending that its central method, answering interlocking “questions,” was a barren form of theological enquiry that paled in comparison the approach of the Church Fathers. Essentially, the Ratio constituted a spiritual humanist alternative to the theological method advocated by the schools.xxviii The only modern works that Hubmaier insisted his nephew read were the works of Erasmus and one of them explicitly undermined the educational foundations his own theological training; alone, Hubmaier’s recommendation of the Ratio and the Paraphrases indicates a major intellectual shift had taken place in his thought.

The second and main purpose of Hubmaier’s letter is to establish a friendship with Sapidus and make known his humanist sympathies. The letter begins in praise of his erudition, the fame of which compelled Hubmaier to send his nephew to him in the first place and expressly indicates he had intentionally rejected scholasticism and desired to align himself with those devoted to humanist biblical methodology. Urging Sapidus to write him and alleviate his scholarly isolation in Waldshut, Hubmaier assured him of his own commitment to humanism:

Even though I am not able to be in the company of the learned, I revere, honour, and respect from the depths of my heart the graduates and candidates, not of

9

quaestiology but of unblemished theology, and especially those who have drunk from the sources of Pauline divine wisdom.xxix Hubmaier’s reference to quaestiologia, or scholasticism, stands in opposition to

the biblical theology of the humanists. Hubmaier’s characterization of scholasticism echoes themes in the Ratio, where Erasmus also denigrates it as preoccupied with little questions (quaestiunculae) that only lead to more questions, not spiritual fruit.xxx At the conclusion to the Ratio Erasmus succinctly provides an alternative to the scholastic method: “But if one desires to be more informed regarding piety than disputation, then let him immediately and above all turn to the sources, and go to those writers who have drunk closely from the sources.”xxxi Erasmus’ reference primarily is to the inspired authors of scripture, but Hubmaier utilizes similar language to describe contemporaries imbibing Pauline theology rather than mastering the opinions of the scholastic doctors. Given Hubmaier’s recommendation of Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament, which by 1521 encompassed primarily the Pauline epistles, and his commendation of the Ratio, it is clear Hubmaier had humanists, and especially Erasmus, in mind when he declared his allegiance to “those who have drunk from the sources of Pauline divine wisdom.”xxxii From the Letter to Sapidus it appears that intense study of the Bible characterized Hubmaier’s pastoral work in Waldshut and Erasmus served as one of his principal exegetical guides.

The letter closes with a candid expression of his desire to enter Sapidus’ circle: “And so, let this be the measure and gist of this little letter: that you should count me among the number of your friends, more correctly, one of your disciples (if the former is presumptuous), which I have already made myself.”xxxiii As a token of the anticipated friendship, he included with the letter a gift of the recently published edition of two Roman satirists, Juvenal and Persius.xxxiv The letter also confirms that Hubmaier’s conversion to humanism coincided with a growing sympathy for Luther and that he was willing to criticize the pope, who less than a year earlier had excommunicated him. Hubmaier appended to the letter a story circulating in humanist circles that compared the friendship between Herod and Pilate in their conspiracy to crucify Jesus with the friendship between Emperor Charles V and Pope Leo X in their attempt to quash Luther.xxxv Hubmaier’s inclusion of the anecdote suggests that at a time when humanists were taking sides in the debate, he was leaning heavily toward Luther. The letter represents a crucial moment in Hubmaier’s theological development since, as Bergsten notes, in it he “confesses that he has embraced the humanist ideal.”xxxvi

Hubmaier continued to “embrace the humanist ideal” into the spring of 1522, as seen by the letter to Johannes Adelphi.xxxvii Adelphi, a prominent physician in Schaffhausen and early advocate of Luther, apparently was also a friend of Erasmus who had translated some of his books into German. In 1521 Adelphi himself had visited Basel and reported to others that “all the scholars are Lutherans.”xxxviii Hubmaier’s letter reveals he had been diligently studying the Bible and developing personal connections by traveling to Basel, one of the centres of humanist activity. As he begins, Hubmaier apologized for neglecting his friend and related his current course of study:

The reason I have not sent you any letters for a long time, most learned Doctor, is that I have been greatly occupied by both domestic and literary matters. First of all, I am now wrestling with Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians, having already

10

finished the letter to the Romans. Concerning that matter, make sure that the Collectanea of Doctor Matthew Beyer (fully collected by Philip) reach me to ease my labor.xxxix Bergsten identified the collectanea as the handwritten notes taken by Beyr at

Philip Melanchthon’s lectures in Wittenburg during 1521/1522, which did not appear in print until November 1522.xl At the end of the letter, Hubmaier indicates he owned two books by Luther, commenting, “I have the books of Luther, sub utraque specie and de Coena. I would like your opinion on the little book sub utraque.”xli The first, sub utraque specie, was probably “Von beider Gestalt des Sakraments zu nehmen” (April 1522) and the second, de Coena, may be “Ein Sermon von dem Neuen Testament, das ist von der heiligen Messe” (1520). Since both deal with the Lord’s Supper, and the former was published only two months earlier, the reference indicates Hubmaier was keeping abreast with scriptural commentaries and actively engaging with the ideas of the reformers on controversial topics.xlii A point particularly important to the issue of Erasmus’ influence is that Hubmaier actively sought the opinion of respected humanist reformers, such as Melanchthon and Adelphi, for his understanding of scripture. It is plausible, therefore, that Hubmaier may have consulted Erasmus’ paraphrases for his study of the Pauline corpus.

The most important element of the letter to Adelphi is Hubmaier’s description of his journey to Freiburg and Basel in April or May 1522. In his account of the trip, Hubmaier provides informative statements about his personal contacts with Basel humanists and evidence of his theological transformation:

But perhaps you are wondering what I did in Freiburg and Basel not long ago? Listen to a brief account. I came down to Basel, where I met Busch, a truly learned man, and Glarean. I also paid my respects to Erasmus. With him I discussed many points about purgatory and especially these two phrases from John 1 [13]: “Neither from the will of the flesh nor from the will of man.” For a considerable time, Erasmus held back on the subject of purgatory, but, after a while, producing a scholarly response, he hastened on to many other and varied topics at that. Erasmus speaks freely, but writes precisely. But I will speak with you about those things. I came also to Freiburg…then, while journeying back to Basel, I rejoined my best friends from Basel. We discussed many things on the journey, both learned and profound. I was not able to chat much with Pellican, who returned late from his chapter. In truth, he lost many brothers in the meantime; the Johannites, Augustinians, and the remainder are suffering the same fate.xliii

Hubmaier claims to have met Hermann Busch (d. 1534), the professor of poetry

whose defense of humanism, Vallum Humanitatis (1518), and advocacy on behalf of Johannes Reuchlin, earned him the respect of intellectuals throughout Germany, including Erasmus. Busch visited Basel in the spring of 1522 and demonstrated support for the Reformation, arguing against Luther’s opponents and breaking the Lenten fast. At the time of his visit to Basel in 1522, the two were close friends, and it was Erasmus who apologized to the Bishop of Basel for Busch’s offense. Hubmaier’s mention of Busch confirms the general reliability of his report, since Busch was only briefly in Basel

11

in the spring of 1522, and indicates he had contact with and showed respect for a well-known humanist who was also an early supporter of Luther.xliv

Another individual Hubmaier encountered in Basel was the Swiss humanist Henry Glarean (1488-1563), who, like Sapidus, was an educator who promoted humane letters. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Erasmus’ theological publications, yet, unlike Busch, he refused to join the Reformers.xlv Hubmaier also mentions Conrad Pellican (1478-1556), a member of Erasmus’ inner circle who served as the warden of the Franciscan monastery in Basel and lectured in theology at the university. Pellican’s expertise in Hebrew distinguished him among the humanists, and he had promoted the ideas of the Reformation from within his monastery until he eventually went to Zurich. He openly acknowledged his debt to Erasmus even after their personal estrangement in 1525 and their differences over the Reformation.xlvi Although Hubmaier’s discussion with Pellican was brief, he conversed with him enough to learn that the monasteries of the region were in trouble, and many nuns of Basel were abandoning the religious for the married life.xlvii Since Hubmaier was already a famous figure in his own right, writing a private letter to a trusted friend, there is no reason to question the basic veracity of the account. It is difficult to know the full extent of his relationship with the Basel humanists, but at the very least it is clear he was actively engaging with influential members of Erasmus’ inner circle, people he referred to as “my best friends from Basel” (optimos comites meos Basileenses). Hubmaier did not meet Oecolampadius on that trip, but his later correspondence with him indicates he maintained contact with the Basel circle for several years afterward.xlviii

Leon Halkin describes the encounter between Hubmaier and Erasmus as “worth its weight in gold,” for “in it we see the two men face to face, Bible in hand, taking each

other’s measure in a courteous discussion.”xlix As we know, Hubmaier was already an admirer of Erasmus’ biblical scholarship, including the Paraphrases and the Ratio, but here he offered his reaction to the man himself. Hubmaier’s presents Erasmus as a very cautious and shrewd intellectual, who realizes the controversial consequences of his ideas and guards his published statements accordingly.

Hubmaier indicates that the conversation ranged over many topics, but he specifically mentions a discussion of purgatory and one particular verse from the prologue to the Gospel of John. Based on Erasmus’ comments on this passage in the Annotations and the Paraphrase on John published early in 1523, as well as Hubmaier’s interpretation of the text, the conversation probably revolved around the

question of free will. The “children of God,” “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”l Erasmus’ annotation observes the fact that the words blood, flesh, and man are synonyms standing in contrast to God. The Paraphrase on John emphasizes the difference between the first birth (natural) that leads to death because of sin, and the second birth (spiritual) that leads to life because of Christ.li Both Hubmaier and Erasmus published important treatises on free will but

12

the passage is not important to Erasmus’ treatise, but does play a role in Hubmaier’s argument for free will; therefore, it is likely that Hubmaier and Erasmus discussed free will with reference to John 1:13.lii

The doctrine of purgatory was so intricately related to the fundamental issues that sparked the Reformation,liii it comes as no surprise that a discussion of it arose during a meeting of reform-minded individuals in the spring of 1522. Hubmaier suggests that at the outset Erasmus was unwilling to speak on the topic, but he provides no clear explanation for the humanist’s reticence. The content of Erasmus’ eventual “scholarly response” (umbratilis responsio) probably mirrored his most pertinent discussion of the topic in his Annotations on I Corinthians 3:13-15, the text that, according to Jacques Le Goff, “played a crucial role in the development of Purgatory in the Middle Ages.”liv The gist of Erasmus’ extensive note on that passage is clear: Despite the use of the text since the time of Augustine to support the doctrine of purgatory, that was not the interpretation of most of the Church Fathers. Jerome, Origen, Ambrose, Theophylact, and Chrysostom were interested in other matters and consequently made no mention of it in their comments on that passage. Erasmus’ paraphrase indicates that he followed their lead and interpreted the “fire” of the verse as the trials and tribulations of life, which, when endured, revealed a genuine faith.lv This does not mean Erasmus rejected the doctrine, but it does suggest his acceptance of it was not based on its biblical support, and this may have come up in the interview with Hubmaier.

Following directly upon the mention of purgatory, Hubmaier provides an intriguing and puzzling assessment of Erasmus: “Erasmus speaks freely, but writes precisely (Libere loquitur Erasmus, sed anguste scribit).” This description of the humanist fascinated Halkin, who suggested it was inspired by Hubmaier’s reading of the preface to the Paraphrase on Matthew (1522) that some contemporaries and modern scholars have argued was an endorsement of something resembling rebaptism.lvi Halkin believed that Hubmaier may have had the preface in mind because “this text has everything to fascinate a dissident, but without giving him full satisfaction” and “if the ‘doctor of Anabaptism’ had read this preface he would have found it worth while, but insufficient.”lvii The preface arguably could have bolstered Anabaptist arguments against infant baptism, but there is nothing in Hubmaier’s description that indicates baptism or the preface to the Paraphrase on Matthew had ever been discussed. Additionally, Halkin’s interpretation appears to rest on the assumption that Hubmaier had read the preface as a religious dissident by June 1522 when he wrote to Adelphi. But at this point in his career and theological development, Hubmaier, who within only a few months would again be preaching to the pilgrims at Regensburg, was not even a Reformer, let alone a dissident who was seriously questioning infant baptism. Hubmaier was sympathetic to Luther’s theology and critical of the medieval Church, but it would be over a year before he began to express doubts about the validity of infant baptism.lviii Hubmaier may have obtained his copy of the Paraphrase on Matthew on the trip to Basel, and he indeed may have been provoked by it to think about the issue of baptism, but he could hardly have been disappointed with it by June 1522 for “not going far enough.”

Vedder suggests that the phrase “Erasmus speaks freely, but writes precisely” represented disapproval of Erasmus;lix however, nothing in the letter suggests

13

displeasure. Hubmaier went on to report about other enjoyable elements of the trip and in his later writings he cited Erasmus positively and recommended his books. The most likely interpretation of Hubmaier’s judgment of Erasmus is that he was surprised or even cautiously satisfied. The phrase is a candid assessment of the humanist that calls attention to the contrast between Erasmus the careful writer, who keeps “within narrow limits” (anguste), and Erasmus the conversationalist, who is willing, when pressed, to speak openly (libere) about things that he would likely never put into print. Erika Rummel has argued that in the dangerous political climate of the early Reformation Erasmus became particularly adept at concealing his true opinions through the use of creative literary devices. Erasmus exercised great caution, or precision, in print because he was “willing to publish, but not to perish.”lx It could be argued, however, that in the relative safety of his Basel circle of friends, and those like Hubmaier, who were welcomed into its fellowship, Erasmus was more willing to offer forthright opinions on controversial matters of faith and doctrine, sometimes with conclusions at variance with traditional church teaching. Carl Sachsse rightly understands this dynamic as determinative for the meaning of Hubmaier’s description, writing “evidently Erasmus had given him an answer that deviated from the faith of the Catholic Church” and that this opinion likely would not have been explicit in Erasmus’ “precise” statements in print.lxi Hubmaier implies that he had discovered something significant about Erasmus, namely that his published works were to be viewed as the conservative Erasmus and that his real opinions on many matters were more radical than what he was willing to convey in print. This discovery was important enough to Hubmaier that he follows up the description with a promise that he would explain in more detail his meaning to his Lutheran friend Adelphi when he next visited Schaffhausen.

If this reading of Hubmaier’s assessment is correct, the future Anabaptist leader’s meeting with him in Basel was significant in two ways. First, Hubmaier might have left it armed with an interpretational key to Erasmus’ publications, not regarding a particular issue or doctrine, but instead for the general way he understood everything the humanist put into print. He may have felt he could now read between the lines and grasp what Erasmus really believed about the subject at hand. Referring to Erasmus’ personal interaction with young idealistic scholars, Tracy has pointed out that “words spoken in the quiet of his Basel rooms resounded like a thunderclap” on the southern Germany religious landscape.lxii Friends and colleagues in Basel were privy to forthright and lively discussions of contemporary issues and in at least one case, divulging or misrepresenting their religiously sensitive content led to a falling out between Erasmus and one of his friends, Conrad Pellican.lxiii Reform minded individuals who did not share Erasmus’ commitment to the consensus ecclesiae could have found in such discussions support for the views of Luther or Oecolampadius, and this dynamic was probably at work in Hubmaier’s brief encounter with Erasmus.

Hubmaier’s meeting with Erasmus came at a crucial time in the former’s religious development. Hubmaier was not yet a dissident or a Reformer in the spring of 1522, but he was in the throes of a personal and theological transformation. Writing to the Regensburg city council in March 1524, Hubmaier related that he had been busy over the past few years making up for his lack of biblical training, admitting that only “within the last two years had Christ begun to be formed in my inner self.” Summarizing Hubmaier’s development as of June of 1522, Windhorst concludes, “it is evident that he

14

was strongly influenced by humanism, turning towards the study of the Pauline letters, and also facing the Reformation desires of Luther with an open mind, all the while on the outside carrying out the duties of a Roman priest.”lxiv The only considerable evidence for his theological development during this period are the letters cited above, the most substantial of which details the meeting with Erasmus and his assessment of the humanist. The letter to Adelphi helps us to understand the nature of Hubmaier’s transformation from a scholastic theologian to a reform-minded humanist. At the very least it can be said that his theological conversation with Erasmus revealed to him another side of Erasmus, one that was more open to the ideas of the Reformation than he previously had supposed and this revelation likely caused him to read Erasmus’ religious writings through new and more Protestant lenses.

Hubmaier completed his move toward the Reformation later that year during his second term as pilgrimage preacher in Regensburg in the winter of 1522-23. In December 1522, he signed a contract to renew his preaching duties in the city for a year, an arrangement that the city council hoped would revive the lagging pilgrimage movement.lxv While in Regensburg, Hubmaier associated with a group of Lutheran-leaning artisans who continued to attend Catholic Mass, yet also met in homes for evangelical services, and it was during this period that he finally resolved to side with the Reformation. After only six weeks into his second contract at Regensburg, he left the city for Waldshut, apparently because he was not able to fulfill his responsibilities to the city and its pilgrimage industry. His new religious orientation would

not allow it. Returning to Waldshut put him in close proximity to Zurich, which in January 1523 had held its first disputation, which resolutely set it on a course for Reformation. By 19 April 1523, when he preached an inflammatory sermon labeling priests “murderers of men’s souls and priests of Satan,” Hubmaier embarked on his reforming career and actively began to associate himself with Zwingli and Zurich.lxvi The letters from the first Waldshut period of Hubmaier’s career support the conclusion that his theological development and eventual migration into the reforming camp coincided directly with his contact with the humanists of southern Germany, particularly Erasmus.

Hubmaier’s theological publications also provide evidence of his contact with

Erasmus, whose name appears seven times in four separate contexts in Hubmaier’s more than twenty reforming treatises.lxvii The first citation of Eramus is found in On the Christian Baptism of Believers (1525) in the context of the baptism of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:16-34). In this story, the jailer and his household are baptized after being told by Paul to “believe in the Lord Jesus.” In an attempt to prove faith must come before baptism, Hubmaier quotes the story and adds a brief commentary: “Pay attention here to the old translations of Aldus and Erasmus.”lxviii The Aldine Bible (1518) was not a translation but the first printed edition of the entire Bible in Greek; it included a reprint

15

of Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum (1516), errors and all.lxix In referring to Erasmus, Hubmaier appears to be discouraging his readers from using the Vulgate in preference for Erasmus’ fresh Latin translation.

Since Erasmus made few changes to the Vulgate text on other parts of the story, the critical passage must be Acts 16:34. In the Vulgate it reads: “and when he [the jailer] had brought them to his home, he set the table for them and rejoiced (laetatus) with his whole house (cum omni domo sua), believing in God (credens Deo).” Erasmus’ translation alters several words and one changes the final sense: “and when he [the jailer] had brought them to his home, he set the table for them and rejoiced exceedingly (exultavit) with his entire (universa) household because it had come to faith in God (quod credidisset Deo).”lxx Erasmus’ translation intensifies the nature of the “rejoicing” and clarifies the temporal relationship between faith and baptism. The upshot is that Hubmaier calls the reader’s attention to Erasmus’ translation because it highlights that the jailer had come to faith prior to baptism. The point could be obtained from the context, even in the Vulgate, but Hubmaier emphasizes it in support of his argument concerning the proper order of salvation.

Hubmaier appreciated Erasmus’ Latin translation, but he does not follow his lead completely, as seen in his German translation of the passage. It reads: “Then he brought them into his house, set them at a table, and rejoiced with all his household that

he had come to faith in God.”lxxi Erasmus believes the adverb (entire house)

more appropriately refers to the participial phrase beginning with (had believed).lxxii Therefore, he advises that a proper translation of the last phrase would specify that the entire household had believed, hence “it had come to faith in God.” Hubmaier ignores this advice and instead specifies that at this place the text refers to the jailer, and not his entire household. Although not a major point, this exegetical departure demonstrates a critical engagement with Erasmus’ biblical scholarship.

Hubmaier’s second reference to Erasmus concerns the interpretation of Matthew 28:19-20, the Great Commission, and related baptismal texts in Acts. In Old and New Teachers on Believer’s Baptism (1526) Hubmaier quotes several lines from Erasmus’ Paraphrase on Matthew and the closely related Pentecost sermon of Peter in the Paraphrase on Acts in support of his position. For Hubmaier, Erasmus’ emphasis upon pre-baptismal catechesis constituted an implicit denial of infant baptism.lxxiii In connection with Matthew 28:19-20, Hubmaier cites Erasmus’ interpretation of Peter’s Pentecost sermon, which the humanist explicitly linked with Jesus’ Great Commission. Hubmaier concludes with a simple exhortation: “Consider him also, dear reader, on the eighth chapter of Acts and many other places.” Hubmaier has in mind in Acts 8 either the story of Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9-25) or the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40).lxxiv Although Erasmus never opposed infant baptism in his Paraphrases on the New Testament, or anywhere else, Hubmaier interprets his affirmation of pre-baptismal instruction as an implicit denial of the practice.

Hubmaier’s remaining citations of Erasmus directly relate to his understanding of the Paraphrase on Matthew. In the Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book (1525), Hubmaier discredits infant baptism by arguing that the Trinitarian formula used in its administration derives from Matthew 28:19, but yet “these words still do not apply to young children, also according to the understanding of Jerome, Erasmus, and Zwingli, yea, the old and new teachers.”lxxv Later, in On Infant Baptism Against

16

Oecolampadius(1527), Hubmaier repeats themes found elsewhere, including another reference to Erasmus. Noting that Christ blessed, loved, and embraced children prior to their baptism, Hubmaier asks: “Then, what need do they have of baptism, since the general institution of water baptism does not apply to them also, according to the understanding of Origen, Basil the Great, Athanasius, Tertullian, Jerome, Erasmus, and Zwingli? I want to let their books be my witnesses.” Since all these authorities appear in Old and New Teachers on Believers Baptism - in this particular order - his reference to Erasmus is probably to the interpretation of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2.lxxvi

Hubmaier’s explicit references to Erasmus reveal that he knew the Paraphrase on Matthew and the Paraphrase on Acts, could cite them with accuracy, approved of Erasmus’ textual criticism and translation of the New Testament, and recommended him to his readers. The favourable citations of Erasmus indicate that in the debate over infant baptism Hubmaier considered Erasmus an exegetical ally and cited him as such.

Hubmaier’s extensive use of Erasmus’ On the Freedom of the Will (1524) in his own treatise of the same title, constitutes further evidence of his contact with Erasmus’ work. In 1527, Hubmaier published two books on the freedom of the will and in them he aligned himself with Erasmus. Hubmaier never explicitly referred to Erasmus’ On the Freedom of the Will, but scholars agree that he was deeply indebted to him, despite some variations from the humanist’s argument.lxxvii Burger’s study of Erasmus and Anabaptism conclusively demonstrated that Hubmaier’s use of On the Freedom of the Will was extensive both in terms of style and content. Even Robert Moore, who believes Hubmaier’s anthropology was shaped primarily by nominalism, concedes that the Anabaptist theologian knew Erasmus’ treatise very well.lxxviii Hubmaier’s citations of Erasmus are relatively sparse and do not provide a very clear picture as to the extent to which Erasmus had influenced his thought. They do, however, complement the epistolary evidence by confirming that he continued to utilize Erasmus’ writings long after his conversion to the Reformation and to Anabaptism. Conclusion The evidence of Hubmaier’s contact with humanism and Erasmus strongly suggests Erasmus was a major influence on his thought and possibly his conversion to the Reformation. Hubmaier’s first pastorate in Waldshut marked his decisive reorientation towards humanism and the Reformation and the available evidence supports several facts. First, Hubmaier sought out and maintained, through correspondence, relationships with the well-known humanists, Rhenanus, Sapidus, Adelphi, and Rychard. Second, he studied the works of Reformers and humanists such as Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, Luther, and Erasmus. Third, he specifically praised and recommended Erasmus’ theological works, explicitly renounced scholasticism, and declared himself a devotee of biblical humanism. Fourth, he made personal contact with distinguished humanist scholars in Basel, including Busch, Glarean, Pellican, and Erasmus himself. Fifth, he formulated a personal assessment of Erasmus that may have prompted a radical interpretation of the humanist’s religious publications.

Hubmaier approvingly cited Erasmus’ work in his Anabaptist publications and viewed his scholarship and certain interpretations of Scripture as supporting elements of his theology. Explicit references from both the letters and Hubmaier’s published writings indicate he knew and used Erasmus’ New Testament, Annotations,

17

Paraphrases, Ratio verae theologiae. His own treatise on free will reveals substantial knowledge of Erasmus’ On the Freedom of the Will. The case for contact with Erasmus is compelling. He was clearly in a position to be influenced by Erasmus’ work and ideas. He explicitly identified himself as a humanist and a devotee of Erasmus, and actively cultivated relationships with those in his circle of friends. Comparative exegesis of Erasmus and Hubmaier rests upon solid evidence of the latter’s contact with the former. There can be no question that Hubmaier knew Erasmus’ work, appreciated his thought, and admired his method.

i This section follows the account of Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, supplemented by material from Henry C. Vedder, Balthasar Hübmaier: The Leader of the Anabaptists (New York,1905; reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1971), and Christof Windhorst, “Balthasar Hubmaier: Professor, Preacher, Politician,” Profiles of Radical Reformers, ed. Hans-Jürgen Goertz (Kitchener, ON: Herald Press, 1982), 144-57. ii Quoted in Burger, Erasmus and the Anabaptists, 44. iii In his Apology (1528), referring to his belief about the limitation of the number of feast days, Hubmaier writes “...but there should not be so many, as I publicly argued, twenty years ago at Freiburg in Breisgau, the thesis de non multiplicandis festis (that feast days are not to be multiplied)” (PY, 552; HS, 483). iv Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 50; Denis R. Janz, “Johannes Fabri,” in CEBR 2:5-8. v Walter L. Moore, “Catholic Teacher and Anabaptist Pupil: The Relationship between John Eck and Balthasar Hubmaier,” ARG 72 (1981): 74-75, 77; The poem is cited in Vedder, Balthasar Hübmaier, 29; Packull, “Balthasar Hubmaier’s Gift to John Eck, July 18, 1516,” 428-432; Erwin Iserloh, Johannes Eck (1486-1543): Scholastiker Humanist Kontroverstheologe (Münster: Aschendorff, 1985), 13 identified Hubmaier one of Eck’s most important students. vi See Carl Sachsse, D. Balthasar Hubmaier als Theologe (Berlin, 1914; reprint, Aalen: Scienta Publishers, 1973),117-124 for Hubmaier’s education. vii Charles G. Nauert, Jr., “Humanist Infiltration into the Academic World: Some Studies of Northern Universities,” RQ 43 (1990): 800-801. viii See On the Christian Baptism of Believers (PY 99,142; HS 120, 157); other places, however, he argues his point on the original Greek (PY 172, 229-230; HS 169, 211-212); Hubmaier displays some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek in On the Freedom of the Will (PY 429-430; HS 382-383). ixA Christian Catechism (PY 343; HS 309). xRatio Verae Theologiae, Holborn, 299.

18

xi Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 49, 51; David C. Steinmetz, “Scholasticism and Radical Reform: Nominalist Motifs in the Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier,” MQR 45 (1971): 123-144; Moore, “Catholic Teacher and Anabaptist Pupil,” 78-94; Iserloh, Johannes Eck, 7-17; see Terrence Heath, “Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism in Three German Universities,” Studies in the Renaissance 18 (1971): 9-64, esp. 54-64 for the discussion of Eck’s use of humanist resources for “revivifying” the traditional arts curriculum. xii Heath, “Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism in Three German Universities,” 54-64. xiiiIserloh, Johannes Eck, 18-20. xivErika Rummel, Erasmus and his Catholic Critics, 2 vols (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf Publishers, 1989), 1.47-8; See also Denis R. Janz, “Johann Maier of Eck,” in CEBR 1:417. xv Packull, “Balthasar Hubmaier’s Gift to John Eck,” 428-431 suggests the two men would have discussed Eck’s upcoming disputation topic (usury); the same could be said for Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum. xvi Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 65-66, 74. xvii Ibid., 71-72. xviiiJohn F. D’Amico, Theory and Practice in Renaissance Textual Criticism: Beatus Rhenanus Between Conjecture and History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 47-55, 66-67; for the role of Tertullian in Rhenanus’ thought and his status as Erasmus’ “alter ego,” see John F. D’Amico, “Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation: a humanist’s critique of Scholasticism,” ARG 71 (1980): 37-63. xixBriefweschsel des Beatus Rhenanus, ed. Adalbert Horawitz and Karl Hartfelder (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966), 263. “Beato Rhenano suo Baldasar Pacimontanus [Latin for “Friedberger”]. Hanc chrysin mittit satis sero, qui citius mittere nequibat. S[ui]. doctissime Rhenane. Hic mitto perdocti Oecolampadii iudicium, quod citius id mittere haud potui. Nam id in manibus domini vicarii Constantiensis non fuit. Verum id rursus diebus illis ex Ulma mecum advexi. Vale. Tuissimus Baldasar.” xx Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 71-72. xxi Windhorst, Täuferisches Taufverständnis, 8. xxii D’Amico, “Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation,” 38.

19

xxiiiLetter to Sapidus (26 October 1521) in Manfred Krebs and Hans Georg Rott, ed. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer, Vol. VII. Elsass, I. Teil: Stadt Strassburg 1522-1532 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1959), 40-42, abbreviated as Letter to Sapidus. xxiv D’Amico, Theory and Practice, 40-43.

xxv Miriam U. Chrisman, “Johannes Sapidus,” in CEBR 3:195-6. xxvi Letter to Sapidus, 41. “Faxis itaque, doctissime vir, quo paraphrases Erasmicas, compendium illius ejusdem et Terentianam lectionem haud negligat, in quo facies mihi rem omnium grattissimam.” xxvii John B. Payne, Albert Rabil, Jr, and Warren S. Smith, Jr, “The Paraphrases of Erasmus: Origin and Character,” CWE 42: xi-xix; R.A.B. Mynors, “The Publication of the Latin Paraphrases,” in CWE 42: xx-xxix. xxviii Léon E. Halkin, Erasmus: A Critical Biography, trans. John Tonkin (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 128, 319 n.15; xxixLetter to Sapidus, 41-42. “Et licet in albo doctorum non sim, candidioris tamen, non quaestiologiae, sed theologiae alumnos et candidatos ex cordis meditullio colo, veneror et observo, et inprimis hos qui Paulinae theosophiae fontes imbiberunt.” xxxHolborn, 297. “Quid autem necesse est ad omnes omnium quaestiunculas certa respondere theologum? Quarum neque numerus est ullus neque modus neque finis, dum hydrae in morem pro una recisa sescentae repululant.” xxxiHolborn, 304-305. “At si quis magis cupit instructus esse ad pietatem quam ad disputationem, statim ac potissimum versetur in fontibus, versetur in his scriptoribus, qui proxime biberunt de fontibus.” xxxii Letter to Sapidus, 42; Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 72 briefly notes that Hubmaier primarily refers to Erasmus with this phrase. xxxiii Letter to Sapidus, 42. “Hic itaque esto jam epistolii modus atque summa, ut me intra numerum amicorum tuorum censeas, immo discipulorum, si illud nimis est, quem ego jam meum feci.” xxxiv Ibid., 42, note 7. The edition of Juvenal and Persius either was published in 1519 or early 1521. xxxv Letter to Sapidus, 42. xxxviBergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 73. xxxviiThe Letter to Adelphi (June 23, 1522) is printed in Gustav Veesenmeyer, Über Balthasar Hubmaier, einen der berühmtesten Wiedertäufer zur Zeit der Reformation.

20

Kirchenhistorisches Archiv 4. (Halle: Renger, 1826), 232-234, hereafter cited as Letter to Adelphi. xxxviii Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 73. xxxix Letter to Adelphi, 232-233. “Quod iam multo tempore nihil dederim ad Te litterarum, nimiae occupationes tum domesticae, tum etiam litterariae in causa fuerunt, doctissime Doctor, idque in primis, quod in Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios scripta nunc sudo, absoluta ea, quae est ad Romanos. Ea de re, ut collectanea D. Matthaei Beyr, quae a Philippo collegit omnia, cures, ut ad me veniant, quibus relever in labore.” xl Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier: Seine Stellung zu Reformation und Täufertum, 1521-1528, 101, n.37 This work could not be Melanchthon’s printed commentary on Paul’s epistles because it did not appear until November 1522, five months after Hubmaier’s letter. xli Letter to Adelphi 234. “Libellos Lutheri sub utraque specie et de Coena habeo. Judicium Tuum de libello sub utraque specia exopto a Te.” xlii See Windhorst, “Täuferisches Taufverständnis,” 9 for a discussion of the identity of these works. Hubmaier cited the latter in Old and New Teachers on Believers’ Baptism (PY 256; HS 233). xliii Letter to Adelphi, 233. “Sed forte quaeris, quid Friburgi et Basileae egerim diebus exactis? Accipe paucis. Descendi Basileam, ubi Buschium accessi, hominem vere doctum, et Glareanum, item Erasmum salutavi. Multa cum illo de Purgatorio contuli, ac super iis duobus passibus Iohannis I., “Neque ex voluntate carnis neque ex voluntate viri”. Erasmus aliquandiu de Purgatorio continuit se, sed tandem umbratilem adducens responsionem, ad multa alia et varia quidem properavit. Libere loquitur Erasmus, sed anguste scribit. Sed de iis tecum. Veni et in Friburgum …Dein rursus in Basileam migrans optimos comites meos Basileenses et ego recomitatus sum. Tractavimus multa in itinere et docta et profunda. Cum Pelicano non multa nugatus sum, qui tarde rediit ex capitulo suo. Verum multos interim fratres amisit, hoc idem patiuntur Johannitae, Augustiniani et reliqui.” xliv Guenther, “Hermannus Buschius,” in CEBR 1: 233-234. Busch left Basel in late May, 1522, making it possible to accurately date Hubmaier’s trip to Basel. xlv Fritz Büsser, “Henricus Glareanus,” in CEBR 2:105-108. xlvi Paul L. Nyhus, “Caspar Schatzgeyer and Conrad Pellican: The Triumph of Dissension in the Early Sixteenth Century,” ARG 61(1970):179-204; also, Hans R. Guggisberg, “Conradus Pellicanus of Rouffach,” in CEBR 3:65-66. xlviiLetter to Adelphi, 233-234. xlviii Letter to Oecolampad (PY 67-72).

21

xlix Halkin, Erasmus, 166. l Jn. 1:13 RSV (Revised Standard Version) li Annotations LB 6:340E; Paraphrase on John LB 7:503D-E. lii On the Freedom of the Will (PY 431; HS 383). liiiJaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700), vol. 4, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 136-38. liv Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. by Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 43; also Josef Finkenzeller, “Purgatory,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation 3:363. lv Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios LB 6:671B - 672E; Paraphrasis in Epistola Pauli ad Corinthians LB 7:868A-E. lvi Roland Bainton, “The Paraphrases of Erasmus,” ARG 57 (1966): 73-74; Kenneth R. Davis, “Erasmus as Progenitor of Anabaptist Theology and Piety,” MQR 47 (1973): 174; Abraham Friesen, Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission, 34-35. lviiHalkin, Erasmus: A Critical Biography, 166. lviii Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 80. There is no solid evidence Hubmaier had questioned infant baptism prior to May 1523. See the notes of his interrogation in Zurich (PY 162-63; HS 194-95); the Paraphrase on Matthew had first appeared in March 1522 in Basel. Mynors, “The Publication of the Latin Paraphrases,” CWE 42: xxiii-xxiv. lixVedder, Balthasar Hübmaier, 54. His only comment is, “He was not at all pleased with Erasmus.” lx Erika Rummel, “Erasmus and the Art of Communication,” in Erasmianism: Idea and Reality, 27-28. lxi Sachsse, D. Balthasar Hubmaier als Theologe, 132. lxiiJames Tracy, “Erasmus becomes a German,” RQ 21 (1968): 286. lxiii Guggisberg, “Conradus Pellicanus of Rouffach,” CEBR 3:65-66. lxiv Windhorst, Tauferisches Täufverstandnis, 10. lxv Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 76. lxvi Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 76-77. lxviiOn Christian Baptism (PY 132; HS 148); Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book (PY 228; HS 209); Old and New Teachers on Believers Baptism (PY 255-256; HS 233, 249;

22

two editions, two citations of his name); On Infant Baptism Against Oecolampad (PY 291-2; HS 267). lxviii On Christian Baptism (PY 132; HS 148). lxix Bruce Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 3rd ed (NY: Oxford University Press, 1992), 103, and Paul J. Angerhofer, In aedibus Aldi: the Legacy of Aldus Manutius and his Press (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1995), 26. lxx Erasmus of Rotterdam, Novum Instrumentum, Facsimile Reprint with introduction by Heinz Holeczek (Stuttgart-Bad: Frommann-Holzboog, 1986), 290. lxxiOn the Christian Baptism of Believers (PY 132; HS, 148). The critical phrase is: “dass er an Gott gläubig worden war.” Emphasis mine. lxxii Novum Instrumentum [(Basel, 1516), 392. Cum omni domo sua. (graecum adverbium tribus circumlocutus est dictionibus. Est autem commodius ut

referatur ad participium proxime sequens lxxiii Old and New Teachers on Baptism (PY 255-256; HS 233); Paraphrase on Matthew (LB 7:146B) and Paraphrase on Acts (CWE 50:24; LB 7:674). lxxiv Old and New Teachers on Baptism (PY 256; HS 233). Paraphrase on Acts (LB 7:697; CWE 50:62-63). lxxv Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book (PY 227; HS 209). lxxvi On Infant Baptism Against Oecolampadius(PY 291-292; HS 267). lxxviiThor Hall, “Possibilities of Erasmian Influence on Denck and Hubmaier in Their Views on the Freedom of the Will,” MQR 30 (1961): 149-170; Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, 352-58; Burger, Erasmus and the Anabaptists, 54-75; Moore, “Catholic Teacher and Anabaptist Pupil,” 69-74. lxxviii Burger, Erasmus and the Anabaptists, 54-75; Moore, “Catholic Teacher and Anabaptist Pupil,” 72-74.